TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Join the search => Topic started by: Randy Reid on June 03, 2012, 12:44:59 PM
-
This is in response to the enthusiasm shown in another thread for the pictures of "Nessie" on the cnn photographs. Which one of the attached photos looks more like Nessie? Be honest.
-
this one :D
-
One thing we learned at the symposium is that the term "Nessie" shouldn't be used for the photo object. Nessie is considered a myth, this object is real. It should be called "The Bevington Object". ;D
Remember that this object brought attention to the project by several parties. It has already performed a good service.
Edit: and by "object" I don't mean Chris' photo object. LOL. That is the true Nessie.
-
I like that, the "Bevington Object"
Irv, you do know that my picture is actualy an elephant crossing a river and was a hoax!
-
Irv,
I really appreciate your posting of pictures from the symposium. Lots of stuff I haven't seen before. Thank you very much,
Randy
-
Hi Randy. It was my pleasure and I am very glad that so many people were able to view what we saw first hand. I did this very ad hoc and if TIGHAR does something like this again then I would undertake a more professional approach. I asked Ric's permission only at the start of the conference and he very willingly gave consent. My thanks to Ric and TIGHAR for letting me do this for everyone.
-
Slow down is a very good idea. Photo enhancement is like adjusting colours of old colour pics in Photoshop. Highly subjective and very easy to be tweaked into the result everyone wants. Frankly even looking at the enhanced and fiddled pics I only see some elements of part of an undercarriage after the tweaking, not before. What that object is I have no idea, however just tweaking it to look like an undercarriage leg is not the answer.
-
The key here is that no one is saying it is definitely an undercarriage leg. Not Jeff Glickman for sure. He is being careful to say that it "may" be an undercarriage leg but stops well short of saying it is one. Jeff also told me that the government photo analyst team are also only saying it may be an undercarriage leg. So no one who does this kind of work for a career is saying its definite.
-
IMO, the bevington object is an outboard powered skiff, stern to in the photo, with the outboard tilted up to clear the reef. But then again in the lengthy ROV video/still thread, I cannot make anything out of the pics shown there.
although this may drift my own thread, if anyone wants to play around with your digital photos, there is a program out there called Photofiltre. Not as capable as photoshop and watch out for add-ons if you decide to install it, but the price is right.
Randy
-
Randy, respectfully, I saw something different. Wasnt a hologram, ;D, or light reflection from the water.
-
Good post Jeff, I totally agree with everything you have said. I think Jeff has done a brilliant job on the imaging and presented it with the degree of caution that is needed. One thing is for sure, there WAS something there that warrants further investigation on the reef area in that vicinity.
-
an
And with all due respect I am not sure how you could 'know that' from the picture
Well, I read every post on the ROV thread which put my eyes and brain into a hyper sensitive mode ::)
My point is with the limited clarity of the photograph, and no eye witness to disclaim it, you can call the "bevington object" anything you want to. If there were other evidence related to the object, such as more photos from a different perspective, then maybe the object could be better identified.
I will stand by my opinion that it is a skiff until someone proves otherwise or I change my mind ;D
Randy
-
Isn't Emily Sikuli an eye witness in regards what she saw in that general location?
I never did like how some people discredited her account. Why would she be wrong? Is she "too native" for some to trust what she is talking about? Does she not have enough education for some to believe she may know the general appearance of an aircraft?
-
Isn't Emily Sikuli an eye witness in regards what she saw in that general location?
I never did like how some people discredited her account. Why would she be wrong? Is she "too native" for some to trust what she is talking about? Does she not have enough education for some to believe she may know the general appearance of an aircraft?
1. She was young.
2. She was essentially reporting second-hand what her father told her. How good was his judgment? Why did he call it part of an airplane?
3. She did not see an airplane, but a "steel" tube of some sort with something round on it.
4. The interviews took place long after the event.
5. Apart from the photograph--if one accepts the photograph as a piece of evidence--there is no other contemporaneous witness confirming her account.
None of that means she is wrong. It does provide grounds for reasonable doubt.
-
Marty, you beat me to it.
for the record, I don't doubt anything Emily said. I think she was intelligent and truthful and believed her recollections.
But, there is always a but isn't there?
Emily was only 11 years old when she saw the object. She was forbidden to get near the object. She was told by others that it was an airplane part. Her description of the part could make it anything.
As far as being "too native", I would think it would make her a better witness. She would not have any particular "ax to grind".
Randy
-
I tried Googling 'objects similar to the Bevington Object' and all I got back was L10 landing gear... ;D Seriously, cool find.
Gosh, Jeff, you mean that you didn't find the ultimate object (http://tincupcowboy.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/norwich-electra-13.jpg) that it could have been?
-
Jeff,
The skiff picture is an old outboard motor advertisement posted on an antique boating forum. My dad's first outboard motor looked like the one in the picture. When I got the idea that the "object" was a skiff with an outboard motor on it, I wondered if it was even possible. Were there even outboard motors that old? Well, one google search found outboards a lot older than 1937, some production models in the early 1900's. Hundreds of pictures of old skiffs with outboards but none from the same perspective as the "object". So I chose the advertisement pic without any enhancement other than cropping.
Randy
-
Isn't Emily Sikuli an eye witness in regards what she saw in that general location?
I never did like how some people discredited her account. Why would she be wrong? Is she "too native" for some to trust what she is talking about? Does she not have enough education for some to believe she may know the general appearance of an aircraft?
As I was at pains to point out Emily's "testimony" was unreliable for a number of reasons. Please let us not conflate a wild guess about "Nessie's" identity with supporting evidence from a demonstrably doubtful source.
-
Dr. Malcolm, how are you today? We certainly missed you in DC this weekend. It was a place where alot of different opinions were discussed by Experts and Novices. The experts even presented things in a way that even I could understand. (Thanks Dr. King and Lonnie!) Sure would have been great for you to have come.
As for saying something was reliable or not---well SIR---I guess you would have to have been in DC to get the real picture. My suggestion is that you might talk to some of the members that were there, or better yet---those members that actually spoke to her. IMHO and maybe that of some other members, Emily Sukuli provided some valuable information, some of which has been very accurate. So I guess if someone expressed to that they saw someone bury $5 million near a tree that doesnt exsist anymore, on a mountain top that was a volcano. As an archaeologist, you would still investigate wouldnt you? Sir----dont knock it or TIGHAR for its efforts. They are going and doing-----and you?
-
Dr. Malcolm, how are you today? We certainly missed you in DC this weekend. It was a place where alot of different opinions were discussed by Experts and Novices. The experts even presented things in a way that even I could understand. (Thanks Dr. King and Lonnie!) Sure would have been great for you to have come.
As for saying something was reliable or not---well SIR---I guess you would have to have been in DC to get the real picture. My suggestion is that you might talk to some of the members that were there, or better yet---those members that actually spoke to her. IMHO and maybe that of some other members, Emily Sukuli provided some valuable information, some of which has been very accurate. So I guess if someone expressed to that they saw someone bury $5 million near a tree that doesnt exsist anymore, on a mountain top that was a volcano. As an archaeologist, you would still investigate wouldnt you? Sir----dont knock it or TIGHAR for its efforts. They are going and doing-----and you?
Well Tom - unlike some I don't need to fork out a few thousand dollars to be able to tell when a story doesn't add up. Still if you have the money to burn .....
-
Well.... I forked out a few dollars and had a perfectly enjoyable weekend listening to many points of view. I remained open minded and respectful of others opinions as they did with mine. I enjoyed several beers with Gary LaPook and have an even greater respect for him AND his opinions. As I did having dinner with Marty Moleski. Two men with their own points of view. Learned men with great respect for the right of others to exercise their freedom of speech. Both with a marvelous sense of life and humor. Too bad you couldn't have been there. You might have enjoyed yourself too.
-
I didnt either---and probably most of the attendees--I'd guess 80+ didnt either. Granted some of the theories didnt add up---thats why I went, and I'm sure others did too---to talk about them. Not banter back and forth anonomously on a forum. In person, face to face. Ask Gary LaPook. Flew in from California, to educate some of us. Dr. Tom King---noted archaeolgist, didnt necesarily agree with all the theories, but listened, and gave us his expertise. Tom Crouch, head of the Smitsonian Air & Space museum didnt agree on all of TIGHAR's points either, but was supportive of the efforts.
Look Dr. Malcolm. No one here is trying to change your mind about the theories. Really. Gary is still of the opinion of the crash and sank variety. But ---he gained a hell of alot of respect in DC by showing up and talking, and showing us his views. He wasnt trying to change anyone else opinion either. Just showing us what he was talking about.
So---if I can be bold, Malcolm give us your theories of this mystery, good bad or other wise. It cant be any worse than some we heard this past weekend, believe me. Alien abduction has already been mentioned, as well as 'other' paranormal oddities. Marty will ensure that you get equal time. And if I have to stand in the corner for speaking out, its ok----been there before. But , Marty didnt slap my fingers, he shook my hand, because I made the effort. Its your turn. and if I'm out of line, I'm sure the other members will let me know.
Tom
-
I enjoyed several beers with Gary LaPook
Now you are making me jealous (and thirsty)
Randy
-
Gary is still of the opinion of the crash and sank variety
Given the number of theories regarding the disappearance of the Electra Gary is very wise to keep the crash and sink one at the top of the likely suspect list. It has to be in the top two given the available information along with the 'stumbled upon Gardner Island' theory. As for the others, well I have a vivid imagination but, some sound like pure science fiction.
Occam's razor and the crash and sink/Gardner Island theories, ok. Anything else? pushing the boundaries of the available information. IMHO
-
Thats correct Jeff. Gary had a VERY well prepared presentation that he showed most of us. Whether we agreed or not wasnt the issue. He has valid points, and we all listened to him. He's intellegent, and very thorough. It just goes to show that people with desenting views CAN get together and discuss them. And you know what? Garys views may end up playing a BIG part of this whole project. Because alot is still theoritical, alot of these desenting views may end up bonding with others views to piece the whole puzzle together. And---i respect him for it. Now the aliens, and 'paranormal' stuff----thats kinda out there for me-----but was 'interesting'.
-
Gary is still of the opinion of the crash and sank variety
You could tell that from the electronic "Crashed and Sank" billboard that he was wearing at the conference. :o
-
Malcolm,
I think that if Emily was a little girl in the States, talking about what she and/or her father witnessed, some people (including you?) may think differently. It may be a subconscious discrediting of natives as being too primitive to know what they are talking about. They may not have a Western-Anglo education, but we all share the common brain of Homo-Homo-Sapiens. How long did it take archaeologists to finally attribute Central American cities (or other great cities of past civilizations) to the people that live in the direct vicinity today?
Just a thought, hope you don't understand it the wrong way. I'm aware of my biases, at least most of the time.
Also, her father would not have mentioned airplane parts unless they were airplane parts or he believed them to be airplane parts. These must have diffirenciated themselves in some way from the rusting hulk farther down the coast.
In an attempt to look at things from all sides, I hope Emily did not have a motive for feeding incorrect information. Was there a motive for personal gain? That would be a problem.
-
;D, but he is still respected for his views----by me anyway.
-
Agreed Jeff. Ric was pretty plain about that in DC. Thats why he had the experts in their fields speak to us, AND be available to answers questions, which I think they all did without any constraint---expect maybe Jeff Glickman on friday afternnon, when we cornered him about the Bevington object ;D. Jeff was great about it, and understandably so. and IMHO was worth the wait
-
I may be at risk of hijacking this forum. I am aware there exists a crash and sink discussion forum under "Alternate Theories". But this topic is being discussed here by others in this thread, so it may not be too out of place.
All respect to those who believe A and N crashed into the Ocean. Either they (crash)landed on land or crashed into the ocean. After looking at the images of the Symposium, I was surprised at the map/diagram that showed the search pattern for all boats and planes involved. Even though it is a large area, it was covered pretty well.
Compared to a landing, a crash at sea is rather messy. Bits and pieces of reflective material everywhere, slowly spreading out and covering a large area, waiting to be found. There is no evidence of this material. I guess in regards to "Crash and Sink" that only leaves the "Land gracefully at sea (hitting no swells) and sink neatly, so as to evade detection theory"?
The prerequisite for this theory must be an extraordinary water-landing involving sheer luck, especially in regards to previous "landing issues" involving our pilot. That seems like quite a stretch. Makes the Niku theory sound better all the time, especially with sightings of plane parts by multiple natives. "Just follow the parts" is my new motto.
If it looks like a duck...
-
good point Ingo.
and BTW Gary---you need to get some of those sign thingys and sell them! Attracted alot of attention, and was cool. programable of course---
-
I have to agree with Jeff and Tom about Gary. I have challenged Gary in the past and may still challenge him in the future BUT with a new found respect and admiration for the man. He is intelligent, thoughtful, thought provoking, has strength of conviction, and a great sense of humor. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with him in DC. Now, as Jeff said, we may not always agree with Gary, but that will not lessen my respect for him. I eagerly look forward to any time I can get with Gary. And yes Gary, I will be buying the beer.
Now I have to add that we all need those message badges Gary!! An excellent way to promote your thoughts and ideas.
-
Ingo, some good thoughts there. It's good to see you getting involved here and I would encourage you to read as much of the background material provided on this great website. Keep an open mind and don't let anyone push you into their corner. No one will come to your house if they disagree. :D
As Gary is probably our leading "crashed and sank" believer I await his reply to your pst 35 above. A crash at sea is messy. Gary?
-
Ingo, good point about the crash and sink theory which makes the ditch and sink theory sound better. Eddie Rickenbackers B-17 went down within 15 minutes of ditching...
As Cherry started his long glide downward, the men braced themselves for the crash. Bartek was standing behind the pilot, holding onto the levers to release the two big rafts. Rickenbacker was strapped to his seat on the right-hand side, holding a pillow to protect his face. Adamson was sitting on the deck, bracing his back against a mattress. Reynolds remained at his radio, sending a constant series of SOS signals — hoping someone somewhere might establish a fix on them. About the time someone yelled 'Only 50 feet left!' one engine sputtered and died. Rickenbacker glanced out a window and could see that the ocean was rough, with high swells. In a moment the big plane did a soft but loud belly-flop in the middle of a trough and skipped another 50 feet before coming to a stop against the waning slope of a swell. As crash landings at sea go, this one was about as good as they got. Had Cherry misjudged the waves by only a few seconds, the plane and its passengers might have sunk immediately.
Green water immediately began gushing through smashed windows, making it impossible to salvage much of the survival equipment.
-
So---if I can be bold, Malcolm give us your theories of this mystery, good bad or other wise. It cant be any worse than some we heard this past weekend, believe me. Alien abduction has already been mentioned, as well as 'other' paranormal oddities. Marty will ensure that you get equal time. And if I have to stand in the corner for speaking out, its ok----been there before. But , Marty didnt slap my fingers, he shook my hand, because I made the effort. Its your turn. and if I'm out of line, I'm sure the other members will let me know.
Tom
Theories -
1. Not a theory but a fact - Earhart is a very small footnote in aviation history. If she and Noonan hadn't disappeared they'd be forgotten now. Any discussion is simply clarifying a very small point.
2. My own view is that there are four possible scenarios. You all know them, so I won't repeat them, and as none have been proved or disproved then I will continue to say as I have said from the beginning that I have no firm favourite. TIGHAR have so far found nothing that changes my mind in their favour.
3. Therefore if TIGHAR's Nikumaroro hypothesis is to earn my acceptance then they have to demonstrate that Earhart landed there. Simple really - any other approach and I should be certified for giving way to messianic overtures.
4. And yes it would have cost me more than several thousand dollars to attend given where I live. But that presupposes I was convinced that the conference offered anything new and it hasn't.
-
Malcolm,
I think that if Emily was a little girl in the States, talking about what she and/or her father witnessed, some people (including you?) may think differently. It may be a subconscious discrediting of natives as being too primitive to know what they are talking about. They may not have a Western-Anglo education, but we all share the common brain of Homo-Homo-Sapiens. How long did it take archaeologists to finally attribute Central American cities (or other great cities of past civilizations) to the people that live in the direct vicinity today?
Just a thought, hope you don't understand it the wrong way. I'm aware of my biases, at least most of the time.
Also, her father would not have mentioned airplane parts unless they were airplane parts or he believed them to be airplane parts. These must have diffirenciated themselves in some way from the rusting hulk farther down the coast.
In an attempt to look at things from all sides, I hope Emily did not have a motive for feeding incorrect information. Was there a motive for personal gain? That would be a problem.
Ingo, as a former professional archaeologist I have dealt on several occasions with witness statements like Emily's. I am fairly aware of the pitfalls, like for instance a trial lawyer would be examining witness accounts.
If you go back and read the Emily Sikuli thread http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,626.0.html you will see where I have detailed my concerns - I won't take up room repeating them here.
-
AE is well remembered and thought of
I was in a conversation the other night with two complete strangers when the subject matter turned to aircraft recovery. I mentioned TIGHAR and the AE research and told one fellow that he would curse me for the weeks he would spend on the site. Instead he thanked me. He said he did a High School term paper on AE and because of the admiration he gained for her - he named his daughter Amelia.
-
Well said Jeff.
The Symposium was more than just TIGHAR presenting information. It was a gathering of like minded individuals. I say like minded in the sense that all who attended are interested in what happened to AE nd FN. By no means was everyone in agreement with the TIGHAR hypothesis and many different ideas were discussed. Just as we do in this forum. As Jeff has pointed out so many times in the past, we should thank TIGHAR for providing this forum to ALL who have an interest in what happened to AE.
I don't know why you Malcolm appear to be taking the position that TIGHAR members are all wrong and only you are right. It reminds me of the private marching out of step with his fellow soldiers when he asked why everyone else was out of step. Members of this forum are not lemmings rushing over the cliff because their leader told them to. Likewise we aren't going to rush over your cliff either. If you are going to post here then understand that some may agree with you and others may not. But if someone doesn't agree with you then that doesn't make them wrong. Just intelligent enough to make up their own mind and confident enough that they will tell you they don't agree.
By the way. Just because you deem something to be small in history doesn't mean you're right. It just means its small to you. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that your opinion is superior to ours. It just comes across that way when you write it.
Nice story Daniel. I'm thinking that her father doesn't think of Amelia as a small part of history. Good to know. Thanks for sharing.
-
Well, more objectively, here we all are so AE means something to us, and TIGHAR did a terrific job with the science and with the entertainment - and in never confusing the two; what an outfit!
LTM -
Well I am glad you enjoyed yourself - but as I have at my leisure read the evidence that is offered in support of the hypothesis and on consideration I find it insufficient to make this particular hypothesis preferable to the three others.
Now if "... it was a wonderful time of learning and sharing among many of us." doesn't have elements of messianic involvement then I don't know what does.
Actually what attracted me to the Nikumaroro hypothesis was less an interest in Earhart and more the derogatory comments posted about TIGHAR's efforts on other sites. Up until then I didn't really care much either way given Earhart's relative unimportance by that stage in her career, however out of curiosity I thought I'd see what the fuss was about. Now I am quite willing to say that TIGHAR have presented the data they claim to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis quite professionally and, as I have said before, I cannot fault that. But I hope you will understand that well-presented data is not necessarily data that confirms a hypothesis and that so far is what I find to be the case. Also that is why I, like others, am keeping an open mind on this hypothesis and the others until we see the results of the next trip.
-
I don't know why you Malcolm appear to be taking the position that TIGHAR members are all wrong and only you are right. etc. etc.
Yes all very nice but I think you will find that there are a number of people other than myself who have a problem with the evidence offered to support the hypothesis. So using terms like "...the private marching out of step with his fellow soldiers when he asked why everyone else was out of step" doesn't in reality advance your case one bit. I suggest that you stick to examining the individual items of evidence offered as I am doing.
-
DR. Malcolm. Thank you for clarifing your position for me. Now I have surely been enlightened. Seems to me that 'professionals' at times in their careers have to do refresher training. I know medical DR's do. My father, as a explosive ordnance disposal officer, had to do it every 2 years. And most of those professionals pay out of their own pockets, as I'm very sure the members of the symposium did. Even Colin Cobb flew in from Belfast (thank you Colin again!!!!). Now granted, Amelia is such a small footnote in history, and not worth your travel expenses. Especially if you are overseas---like Austraila, or New Zealand. I'm sure that traveling so far, some arrangements could have been made. Heck----I had a big room BY MYSELF---you could have stayed there and saved several hundred dollars. So I can certainly understand that. But to sit at your computer and down grade everyone that doesnt rise to your standards, or agree with your theories is lunacy. I met Dr. Tom King, and he certainly seems intelligent enough to make his own choices. He doesnt necessarily agree with alot of TIGHARS positions, but he supports the project. Tom Couch, Bob Ballard, Hillary Clinton, and thousands more seem to have interests in this project, but have their own views of the mystery. So does my 85 year old mother. Now--I'm not real smart, but I really dont think you are going to get any one of those intelligent people to accept YOUR views, sir. As a matter of fact, I would think alot of members would take offense to your position that TIGHAR needs to "earn your accpetance". TIGHAR, and its members dont need to earn anything from you.
So---whats your purpose here? A professional naysayer? Fine. WE all need checks and balances. Gary showed us several. Personally, I think you are here, scouring this forum for information on the mystery for your own purposes. I'll just tell you that Ric Gillespie has put in many years of very hard work to get TIGHAR to the place it is. Along with some very trusted and credible people, TIGHAR is moving forward in its attempt to put the pieces of this very complicated puzzle together. So far, IMHO, they're doing just fine.
This is an open forum, so you may say as you wish. BUT---that goes both ways. But, degrading TIGHAR or its members is a sure way NOT to be heard.
Gee---we sure could have used your professional archaeological opinion in DC. OR it was probalby best that you didnt come----I'm sure respected archaeologists like Tom King and Lonnie Shorrer and other experts would have loved to have heard tales of your adventures. In the meantime, Ric, TIGHAR and Co. will continue to move forward in its pursuit of information, and possible evidence to support its hypothesis. Even if it doesnt find it, the pursuit, the journey, and the knowledge gained wil be worthwhile. With or without your help or acceptance.
Tom
-
I happen to know lots of people who either partially disagree with the hypothesis or totally disagree. I respect all of them. My phrase about the private had nothing to do with "trying to advance my case" whatever that is. I stated that you appear to believe we are all wrong and only you are right. Simple opinion based on my observations. You can either agree or disagree.
Suggesting that I "stick" to the same course as you just reaffirms that, yet again, you believe only your methodology is right.
-
oh BTW---your paper "A Comment on WAC code of Ethics" sounds just like you. What else you have for us?
-
DR. Malcolm. etc. etc.
So - that adds nothing to the discussion at all except a somewhat gratuitous attack while I have always been quite polite and objective in my discussion of the evidence presented.
If you find it difficult to accept that people can disagree with the value of the evidence so far produced to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis, yet decide not to spend several thousands of dollars just to do it in person rather than by using this perfectly convenient forum then that is your problem - not mine.
-
Suggesting that I "stick" to the same course as you just reaffirms that, yet again, you believe only your methodology is right.
My methodology is really quite simple - I look at each artifact and try and understand how it might advance or contradict a hypothesis. Just because one person sees an incontrovertible link with the subject of the hypothesis doesn't mean that someone else does. By questioning assumptions we eventually arrive at a close approximation of reality, it might not be the reality we were seeking but then any answer (providing it is right) is better than nothing.
-
Gary is still of the opinion of the crash and sank variety
You could tell that from the electronic "Crashed and Sank" billboard that he was wearing at the conference. :o
Even Ric got a kick out of that.
gl
-
I may be at risk of hijacking this forum. I am aware there exists a crash and sink discussion forum under "Alternate Theories". But this topic is being discussed here by others in this thread, so it may not be too out of place.
All respect to those who believe A and N crashed into the Ocean. Either they (crash)landed on land or crashed into the ocean. After looking at the images of the Symposium, I was surprised at the map/diagram that showed the search pattern for all boats and planes involved. Even though it is a large area, it was covered pretty well.
Compared to a landing, a crash at sea is rather messy. Bits and pieces of reflective material everywhere, slowly spreading out and covering a large area, waiting to be found. There is no evidence of this material. I guess in regards to "Crash and Sink" that only leaves the "Land gracefully at sea (hitting no swells) and sink neatly, so as to evade detection theory"?
The prerequisite for this theory must be an extraordinary water-landing involving sheer luck, especially in regards to previous "landing issues" involving our pilot. That seems like quite a stretch. Makes the Niku theory sound better all the time, especially with sightings of plane parts by multiple natives. "Just follow the parts" is my new motto.
If it looks like a duck...
Well if you believe that then you probably believe that those five Navy Avenger aircraft of "Flight 19" must have been spirited away by Martians because no trace of those five planes was ever found after an exhaustive search just off the coast of Florida.
gl
-
good point Ingo.
and BTW Gary---you need to get some of those sign thingys and sell them! Attracted alot of attention, and was cool. programable of course---
Try here (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=led+programmable+badges&oq=led+programmable+badges&aq=0K&aqi=g-K1&aql=&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i30.1881.3918.2.6004.7.7.0.0.0.0.658.2047.0j5j5-2.7.0...0.0.DY-0ObY6y-A&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ce5d3c102046a4e1&biw=1280&bih=622).
gl
-
I dont disagree with people that have a difference of opinion. In fact, SIR, its great to have those differences, and being able to discuss them. Gary is a great example. and yes, he probably did spend alot of money to come and give us the benefit of his experience. The difference is that Gary, and others, did listen to alternative theories, and injected some very good comments about them. Everyone still has their own opinions, just like you do. And that is one great thing about this organisation--we can make alternative comments about things. And I too have been polite sir.
Oh one other thing---hard for you to give constructive comments on artifacts, or theories when you havent seen them-----you werent there--
-
But you are correct--$1900. US is expensive for a flight from AUS to DC.
-
Suggesting that I "stick" to the same course as you just reaffirms that, yet again, you believe only your methodology is right.
My methodology is really quite simple - I look at each artifact and try and understand how it might advance or contradict a hypothesis. Just because one person sees an incontrovertible link with the subject of the hypothesis doesn't mean that someone else does. By questioning assumptions we eventually arrive at a close approximation of reality, it might not be the reality we were seeking but then any answer (providing it is right) is better than nothing.
You missed the point. I do not question your methodology. I question your statement that i too should use your methodology because its right, based on your say so.
That's a common theme in your arguments. Just because you "think" things happened a certain way doesn't make it fact. That's the part I have trouble with here. As stated many times previously, you are entitled to your opinion, just don't criticize anyone else if their opinion is not the same as yours. No one has that right.
It's like a restaurant that advertises "delicious apple pie". Who says its delicious? Isn't that up to me to decide? It's my right to decide. Not yours.
-
Oh one other thing---hard for you to give constructive comments on artifacts, or theories when you havent seen them-----you werent there--
One would think this would apply to everybody on the forum.......in 1937 anyway ;D
Randy
-
Well, the forum thread is called "Slow Down A little".
Looking at most of the comments, not only are things not "slowing down a little", but rather speeding up. Also, once again the thread has turned into drivel, mainly concerning the validity of the Niku theory.
So this has become a thread of comment-volleys. I wish it could be more productive, but I hear mostly Malcolm repeating himself over and over. What has he left to say? Can we use our time to possibly look for new ideas, angles or items that may have been missed. I suggest he delve into a project that he may feel passionate about and apply his knowledge to in a productive way, for he is not productive on either end of the arguement.
This forum has become a self-gratifying breeding ground for a couple of people who need an audience. I suggest a thread called "for the nay-sayers" (sp?) to isolate those who want to have an argument and argue the same point repeatedly. "But this forum is open for all to express your views". Yes, I know, but its taking away any forward movement and motivation.
At this rate every thread is being watered down quickly by the same person, who obviously needs attention. Enough already. Our focus could be more directed, but no, we go back to the same discussion on the validity of the Niku theory.
And yes, for what its worth, I have a degree in Archaeology too, didn't find a need to mention it, because it doesn't really matter and make me more credible here. It would be nice to move the thinking forward instead of going in circles, allowing a couple of people the audience they really crave.
Take away the toy, continue productive discussion.
-
Ingo,
a bit unfair as Malcolm has contributed some interesting topics and debate such as Fish Traps and Islander Fraternisation.
As i'm more interested in the Archeology of Niku maybe we could discuss the first 10cm of the seven site and what may lurk beneith.
FYI i'm only a armchair digger but if you need a sound marketing plan or an idepth analysis of the scotch whisky trade to South America then i'm your man ;)
-
.... Also, once again the thread has turned into drivel, mainly concerning the validity of the Niku theory. So this has become a thread of comment-volleys. I wish it could be more productive.... Enough already. Our focus could be more directed, but no, we go back to the same discussion on the validity of the Niku theory....It would be nice to move the thinking forward instead of going in circles....
I concur wholeheartedly with your sentiment expressed above. :)
-
maybe so Bruce but it takes 2 to Tango and 3 or more to conga
-
Guilty as charged--maybe. But I dont need, or want an audience. I started by expounding the virtues of TIGHAR. Truce!!
Ingo---Thanks for letting us know about your degree! No really, because some of us now have another person that we can ask specialized questions to.
yes---slowing down and taking a deep breath is correct. There is alot about this mystery that= we dont know, but little bit by little bit, we are piecing this large puzzle together. The archaeology does play a major part in all of this, and the more we can dig up, the more 'possible' evidence to Amelia being on Niku we can gather. Whether that is at the seven site, the north west corner, the village, or possibly some place 'we' havent thought of yet, its all important. just as important as the 'underwater archaeology' search for the Electra. I'm alittle partical to the aircraft side of this, because we havent found enough evidence that NR16020 was there. Something was for sure, but if the Electra did NOT land on Niku, then what happened, and then how did Amelia and fred get to Niku? As a scientist, I think that you can understand my question. We know she left Lae in the Electra. We 'think' she landed on the reef at Niku, and for a time was a castaway. If TIGHAR finds the evidence about the Electra needed to prove that it is the wreckage on the reef, then might we assume that she was there? But---what if it isnt the Electra, but some other unknown aircraft for times past? That doesnt mean she wasnt there, just that we havent found enough evidence to verify it.
Ingo----I think you can play a big part in this, because of your knowledge. If you dont mind every now and again answering some questions from a non-archaeologist.
Glad you are here!
Tom
-
So this has become a thread of comment-volleys. I wish it could be more productive, but I hear mostly Malcolm repeating himself over and over. What has he left to say? Can we use our time to possibly look for new ideas, angles or items that may have been missed. I suggest he delve into a project that he may feel passionate about and apply his knowledge to in a productive way, for he is not productive on either end of the arguement.
This forum has become a self-gratifying breeding ground for a couple of people who need an audience. I suggest a thread called "for the nay-sayers" (sp?) to isolate those who want to have an argument and argue the same point repeatedly. "But this forum is open for all to express your views". Yes, I know, but its taking away any forward movement and motivation.
At this rate every thread is being watered down quickly by the same person, who obviously needs attention. Enough already. Our focus could be more directed, but no, we go back to the same discussion on the validity of the Niku theory.
And yes, for what its worth, I have a degree in Archaeology too, didn't find a need to mention it, because it doesn't really matter and make me more credible here. It would be nice to move the thinking forward instead of going in circles, allowing a couple of people the audience they really crave.
Take away the toy, continue productive discussion.
Now Ingo if indeed you do have a degree in archaeology you probably realise that artifacts must be examined with a view to their location, stratigraphy and very importantly in terms of their presence in the assemblages of other users who may also have occupied a site. Just because an artifact could have been used by the user group or culture that is the centre of one's attention doesn't necessarily rule out, especially in the case of Nikumaroro, use by another group in a very narrow time band.
So far the artifacts that have been found can with equal validity be allocated to the presence of people other than Earhart and Noonan because of the very narrow occupation span on the island, and the general similarities in the artifact assemblage of each group. Now that is not to deny that some of the artifacts may have belonged to Earhart and Noonan but it is saying that so far none of the artifacts have been shown to actually belong to Earhart and Noonan. I hope that is clear.
TIGHAR have stated themselves that so far no incontrovertible evidence has been found - others may read it more optimistically but as yet that optimism is unfounded. TIGHAR's assessment of the artifacts that have been found is that some may possibly be from Earhart and Noonan but they cannot rule out contamination from the presence of the other groups and settlers that were on the island from 1937 to 1965. There are some tantalising things like the partial skeleton (now missing) and the size 9 shoe but neither is as yet more than a hypothetical link.
The accounts of Emily Sikuli and the two other islanders are interesting but they lack independent verification - something that witness statements in general require. Also from some practical experience of indigenous accounts I am gently sceptical until other evidence emerges. Human memory is not the most reliable thing to base a theory upon - but TIGHAR have been quite open in their reporting and their view of the veracity of those accounts.
At the moment all of this discussion awaits any new evidence that may be found in July. It is becoming quite clear that for the hypothesis to move forward that something substantial in the form of an artifact or wreckage that can be directly linked to Earhart needs to found, or else this discussion is simply going nowhere.
-
Malcolm, after reading just the first part of the first sentence in your post I was forced to stop, due to the patronizing "if indeed" tone. I assume the rest of your post repeats items you have already stated before.
Red x applied...
Off to productive new ideas and angles.
Regards,
-
Malcolm---we agree on that. There isnt any incontrovertible evidence linking the artifacts to AE or FN. Alot of circumstancial evidence mind you, but nothing that jumps out and says AE or FN.
You are also correct about the wreckage search, and its hopes of that evidence we look for.
But---I think that even if the wreckage isnt linked to AE, this discussion will on. Hope you will continue also.
Tom
-
Malcolm, after reading just the first part of the first sentence in your post I was forced to stop, due to the patronizing "if indeed" tone. I assume the rest of your post repeats items you have already stated before.
Red x applied...
Off to productive new ideas and angles.
Regards,
So Ingo has decided that "... new ideas and angles." are possible without access to all the input. Hmm... interesting.
-
Malcolm---we agree on that. There isnt any incontrovertible evidence linking the artifacts to AE or FN. Alot of circumstancial evidence mind you, but nothing that jumps out and says AE or FN.
You are also correct about the wreckage search, and its hopes of that evidence we look for.
But---I think that even if the wreckage isnt linked to AE, this discussion will on. Hope you will continue also.
Tom
Yes Tom - that is it in a nutshell. It also makes for a rather frustrating discussion from the point of view of the archaeology. It is simply wrong to ascribe the origins of something to someone just because of a mix of coincidence and hope, yet both those features are so enticing if one becomes overly committed to an idea. In archaeology it can at times be more common than one would hope, and that is why it is necessary to be rigorous in examining published information.
I remember a debate elsewhere early last year in a subject far removed from the Earhart search where an article claimed that a certain author had radically changed their viewpoint on something and cited the key article wherein this was supposed to have happened. This had quite important ramifications if correct, yet it became clear that the person claiming the change of view seemed to have read only a short and rather erroneously worded summary of the original paper because if one read the original article in its entirety and examined the data quoted the original author had done no such thing. In fact all that had been done was that the analysis of some data had been tightened with new information to remove a small anomaly while leaving the original conclusions unchanged.
-
Sorry to hear your thread has gone 'off topic' Ingo and, deteriorated into a discussion on archeology, again. You have started some interesting threads which have given everyone the opportunity to debate and throw some light on some interesting points, good work.
Yes, the irony of me posting an off topic post into this thread had occurred to me ;D
-
Sorry to hear your thread has gone 'off topic' Ingo and, deteriorated into a discussion on archeology, again. You have started some interesting threads which have given everyone the opportunity to debate and throw some light on some interesting points, good work.
Yes, the irony of me posting an off topic post into this thread had occurred to me ;D
Well at the risk of being pedantic this thread was created by Randy Reid, not Ingo, so I really don't understand his grounds for complaint. But as the investigation of the material artifacts on Nikumaroro is clearly an archaeological matter as far as their location and recovery is concerned then I can't see what is not apposite about archaeological methodology being discussed.
-
I think it's perfectly fair that a bunch of people might want to kick around ideas about a topic that they're interested in and they might be tired of someone repeatedly derailing this prospect by repeatedly reminding everybody that they haven't proved anything, and they're not being scientific enough. Particularly when nobody is really asserting otherwise, but the same point keeps being made over and over as if that was not the case.
-
I think it's perfectly fair that a bunch of people might want to kick around ideas about a topic that they're interested in and they might be tired of someone repeatedly derailing this prospect by repeatedly reminding everybody that they haven't proved anything, and they're not being scientific enough. Particularly when nobody is really asserting otherwise, but the same point keeps being made over and over as if that was not the case.
I have always considered that if ideas are to be kicked around in search of solutions that it is at the least desirable that they stay within the bounds of what is germane to the issue rather than being simply thought bubbles. Of course there is always room for non-germane thought bubbles so long as everyone accepts that they are beckoning towards a blind alley. I shall try in future not to point out obvious blind alleys as you appear to find that offensive.
-
Jeff, speaking as one among those of us who are inferior I say you have hit the nail right on the head. DRIVE ON!!!
-
I agree. I've never thought anything wrong in "kicking around ideas". If you do not use your imagination to search for different scenarios, you may run the risk of pigeon-holing yourself. With little scientific data available and a hypothesis based on circumstantial evidence, should one limit ones possibilities by not thinking outside of the box? I'm certain many archaeologists have incorporated a non-scientific "leap of faith", which helped them find new theories for the many questions that are presented.
During college I was part of a small survey team in Northern California searching for a Russian supply vessel for Fort Ross. The bay in which it ran aground had silted over and created sand dunes. Our professor made us aware of the limited data that was available and asked us to keep an open mind in regards to where the ship ran aground, where cargo may have been transferred to land and how the eventual rescue may have proceeded. Using maps, moving through the physical space ourselves and (dare I say) our imaginations we came up with quite a few productive ideas. These ideas were then used to search for more data.
Don't many solutions come from ideas derived from ones imagination? Mathematicians of all people are also known for this. If you limit your thinking to the few scientific facts available you may continuously spin your wheels and progress will come to a stand still. It will also take away a great deal of positive momentum and make this a stagnant discussion about methodology.
Malcolm, after reading just the first part of the first sentence in your post I was forced to stop, due to the patronizing "if indeed" tone. I assume the rest of your post repeats items you have already stated before.
Red x applied...
Off to productive new ideas and angles.
Regards,
So Ingo has decided that "... new ideas and angles." are possible without access to all the input. Hmm... interesting.
And why wouldn't I want to search for new ideas and angles "without access to all the input"? Nobody has access to all the input, if we did someone would have found the Electra by now. If you focus too closely to only what you know, you may loose focus of overall perspective and miss point entirely. And don't get me wrong here, I'm NOT saying to draw conclusions.
Sorry to hear your thread has gone 'off topic' Ingo and, deteriorated into a discussion on archeology, again. You have started some interesting threads which have given everyone the opportunity to debate and throw some light on some interesting points, good work.
Yes, the irony of me posting an off topic post into this thread had occurred to me ;D
Jeff, with all respect, I don't think this thread keeps "deteriorating into a discussion on archaeology", but rather methodology. Possibly too scholarly, certainly not productive. In an attempt to find "new ideas and angles" (which Malcolm finds not valid) I spent quite a while today reading up on land crab burrowing habits. I hope to understand their behavior a bit more in regards to how long their dens are used, how deep they are dug and whether they take larger food items into these dens. Lets see if anything interesting is gleaned.
Also, this isn't my thread, I do not claim it as my own. I don't know why it should matter who started a thread.
-
Ingo---i call it the 'What IF' scenario. What if-this or what if that. With the lack of really hard concrete evidence, sometimes we do have to think out of the box to come up with some answers. I think we all have to admit that we aer theorizing what happened, or what they did or didnt do.
It will be interesting to see how this all works out.
-
I spent quite a while today reading up on land crab burrowing habits. I hope to understand their behavior a bit more in regards to how long their dens are used, how deep they are dug and whether they take larger food items into these dens.
That would be useful Ingo, I don't think this has been investigated in a lot of detail so far as I can determine. Interesting avenue of thought.
-
Also, this isn't my thread, I do not claim it as my own. I don't know why it should matter who started a thread.
There is some value in locating threads in the proper category.
From time to time, I will split threads or move them.
This thread does not have a luminous title. "Slow Down a Little" could mean almost anything and apply to everything under the sun, including meditations on methods. ::)
It is true that no one owns a thread, other than TIGHAR.
Thread drift happens.
I'm open to advice about how to separate threads as needed.
The moderators can also close threads, for what it's worth.
Some day I'll start a thread on thread drift. Not now. I've got to put the keyboard down and come out of the house.